Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 521–530 | Cite as

Current-mediated periphytic structure modifies grazer interactions and algal removal

Article

Abstract

By shaping the architecture and taxonomic composition of periphyton, stream current may create periphytic mats on which some grazers can feed and forage more effectively than others. Current-mediated periphytic structure also has the potential to foster positive interactions among grazers if one grazer’s foraging facilitates another’s access to algal food. To examine the extent to which these indirect effects of current influenced periphytic removal and grazer interactions, we conducted a mesocosm experiment with two common grazers, the caddisfly (Trichoptera) Glossosoma verdona and the mayfly (Ephemeroptera) Drunella grandis. Periphyton was allowed to colonize ungrazed tiles for 30 d and assume its natural growth form under three ranges of near-bed current, “slow” (1–5 cm s−1), “medium” (15–20 cm s−1), and “fast” (30–40 cm s−1). Tiles were then exposed to the two grazer species at five densities. A streambed survey quantified Glossosoma and Drunella distributions in relation to near-bed current and periphytic structure (i.e., diatom films vs. filamentous mats) in the Colorado River. After 22 days of grazing, periphytic removal by Glossosoma was influenced by near-bed current and attendant periphytic structure. In slow current, where senescent Ulothrix filaments were abundant, increased Glossosoma density was correlated with an increase in periphyton biomass. Larvae became entangled and immobilized by the diffuse and senescent Ulothrix mat that characterized slow velocity, and Glossosoma mortality and weight loss was greatest in this treatment. By contrast, Drunella reduced periphyton across all density and current treatments. Drunella density correlated with increased Glossosoma survivorship and weight gain in slow current. The driving mechanism for this facilitation appeared to be removal of entangling overstory filaments by Drunella. The streambed survey showed that Glossosoma were negatively associated with filamentous mats, lending support to the hypothesis that clearing action by Drunella in the slow current/senescent Ulothrix treatment facilitated Glossosoma growth and survival. Our study helps underscore the importance of evaluating species interactions over ranges of abiotic conditions and consumer pressure to understand the patterns and processes shaping benthic communities.

Keywords

Positive interactions Macroinvertebrate grazers Benthic algae Near-bed current 

References

  1. American public health association (1992) Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water. 18th (Ed.) American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Botts PS (1993) The Impact of small chironomid grazers on epiphytic algal abundance and dispersion. Freshwater Biol 30:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardinale BJ, Palmer MA, Collins SL (2002) Species diversity enhances ecosystem functioning through interspecific facilitation. Nature 415:426–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colon-Gaud C, Whiles MR, Brenes R, Kilham SS, Lips KR, Pringle CM, Connelly S, Peterson SD (2010) Potential functional redundancy and resource facilitation between tadpoles and insect grazers in tropical headwater streams. Freshwater Biol 55:2077–2088. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02464.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahl J, Peckarsky BL (2002) Induced morphological defenses in the wild: Predator effects on a mayfly, Drunella coloradensis. Ecology 83:1620–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darcy-Hall TL, Hall SR (2008) Linking limitation to species composition: importance of inter- and intra-specific variation in grazing resistance. Oecologia 155:797–808. doi:10.1007/s00442-007-0948-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dodds WK, Biggs BJF (2002) Water velocity attenuation by stream periphyton and macrophytes in relation to growth form and architecture. J N Am Benthol Soc 21:2–15. doi:10.2307/1468295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dudley TL (1992) Beneficial effects of herbivores on stream macroalgae via epiphyte removal. Oikos 65:121–127. doi:10.2307/3544894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geddes P, Trexler JC (2003) Uncoupling of omnivore-mediated positive and negative effects on periphyton mats. Oecologia 136:585–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halpern BS, Silliman BR, Olden JD, Bruno JP, Bertness MD (2007) Incorporating positive interactions in aquatic restoration and conservation. Front Ecol Environ 5:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hart DD, Finelli CM (1999) Physical-biological coupling in streams: The pervasive effects of flow on benthic organisms. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 30:363–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hertonsson P, Abjornsson K, Bronmark C (2008) Competition and facilitation within and between a snail and a mayfly larva and the effect on the grazing process. Aquat Ecol 42:669–677. doi:10.1007/s10452-007-9129-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holomuzki JR, Biggs BJF (2000) Taxon-specific responses to high-flow disturbance in streams: implications for population persistence. J N Am Benthol Soc 19:670–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holomuzki JR, Feminella JW, Power ME (2010) Biotic interactions in freshwater benthic habitats. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:220–244. doi:10.1899/08-044.1 Google Scholar
  16. Hondzo M, Wang H (2002) Effects of turbulence on growth and metabolism of periphyton in a laboratory flume. Water Resour Res 38:1277. doi:10.1029/2002wr001409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoover TM, Richardson JS (2010) Does water velocity influence optimal escape behaviors in stream insects? Behav Ecol 21:242–249. doi:10.1093/beheco/arp182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katano I, Mitsuhashi H, Isobe Y, Sato H, Oishi T (2005) Reach-scale distribution dynamics of a grazing stream insect, Micrasema quadriloba Martynov (Brachycentridae, Trichoptera), in relation to current velocity and periphyton abundance. Zool Sci 22:853–860. doi:10.2108/zsj.22.853 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Katano I, Mitsuhashi H, Isobe Y, Sato H, Oishi T (2007) Group size of feeding stream case-bearing caddisfly grazers and resource abundance. Basic Appl Ecol 8:269–279. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2006.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lancaster J, Downes BJ (2010) Linking the hydraulic world of individual organisms to ecological processes: putting ecology into ecohydraulics. River Res Appl 26:385–403. doi:10.1002/rra.1274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lancaster J, Buffin-Belanger T, Reid I, Rice S (2006) Flow- and substratum-mediated movement by a stream insect. Freshwater Biol 51:1053–1069. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01554.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larned ST, Nikora VI, Biggs BJF (2004) Mass-transfer-limited nitrogen and phosphorus uptake by stream periphyton: a conceptual model and experimental evidence. Limnol Oceanogr 49:1992–2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Larson CA, Passy SI (2012) Taxonomic and functional composition of the algal benthos exhibits similar successional trends in response to nutrient supply and current velocity. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 80:352–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee CT, Miller TEX, Inouye BD (2011) Consumer effects on the vital rates of their resource can determine the outcome of competition between consumers. Am Nat 178:452–463. doi:10.1086/661986 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liess A, Haglund AL (2007) Periphyton responds differentially to nutrients recycled in dissolved or faecal pellet form by the snail grazer Theodoxus fluviatilis. Freshwater Biol 52:1997–2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNeely C, Finlay JC, Power ME (2007) Grazer traits, competition, and carbon sources to a headwater-stream food web. Ecology 88:391–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meissner K, Juntunen A, Malmqvist B, Muotka T (2009) Predator-prey interactions in a variable environment: responses of a caddis larva and its blackfly prey to variations in stream flow. Ann Zool Fenn 46:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merritt RW, Cummins KW (1996) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 3rd edn. Kendal/Hunt Publishing Co., DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  29. Merten EC, Hintz WD, Lightbody AF, Wellnitz T (2010) Macroinvertebrate grazers, current velocity, and bedload transport rate influence periphytic accrual in a field-scale experimental stream. Hydrobiologia 652:179–184. doi:10.1007/s10750-010-0329-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Monroe JB, Poff NLR, Thorp RA (2005) Natural history of a retreat-building midge, Pagastia partica, in a regulated reach of the upper Colorado River. West N Am Naturalist 65:451–461Google Scholar
  31. Murdock JN, Dodds WK, Gido KB, Whiles MR (2011) Dynamic influences of nutrients and grazing fish on periphyton during recovery from flood. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:331–345. doi:10.1899/10-039.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Opsahl R, Wellnitz T, Poff NL (2003) Interactions of current velocity and herbivory in regulating stream algae: an in situ electrical exclusion. Hydrobiologia 499:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Passy SI (2001) Spatial paradigms of lotic diatom distribution: a landscape ecology perspective. J Phycol 37:370–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Poff NL, Ward JV (1992) Heterogeneous currents and algal resources mediate in situ foraging activity of a mobile stream grazer. Oikos 65:465–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poff NL, Wellnitz T, Monroe JB (2003) Redundancy among three herbivorous insects across an experimental current velocity gradient. Oecologia 134:262–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Power ME (1991) Shifts in the effects of tuft-weaving midges on filamentous algae. Am Mid Nat 125:275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reid MA, Thoms MC, Dyer FJ (2006) Effects of spatial and temporal variation in hydraulic conditions on metabolism in cobble biofilm communities in an Australian upland stream. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:756–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rober AR, Wyatt KH, Stevenson RJ (2011) Regulation of algal structure and function by nutrients and grazing in a boreal wetland. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:787–796. doi:10.1899/10-166.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosemond AD, Brawley SH (1996) Species-specific characteristics explain the persistence of Stigeoclonium tenue (Chlorophyta) in a woodland stream. J Phycol 32:54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scrimgeour GJ, Culp JM, Bothwell ML, Wrona FJ, McKee MH (1991) Mechanisms of algal patch depletion: importance of consumptive and non-consumptive losses in mayfly-diatom systems. Oecologia 85:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Syrovatka V, Schenkova J, Brabec K (2009) The distribution of chironomid larvae and oligochaetes within a stony-bottomed river stretch: the role of substrate and hydraulic characteristics. Fund Appl Limnol 174:43–62. doi:10.1127/1863-9135/2009/0174-0043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vaughn CC, Spooner DE, Galbraith HS (2007) Context-dependent species identity effects within a functional group of filter-feeding bivalves. Ecology 88:1654–1662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Villanueva VD, Albarino R, Modenutti B (2004) Grazing impact of two aquatic invertebrates on periphyton from an Andean-Patagonian stream. Arch Hydrobiol 159:455–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wellnitz T, Poff NL (2006) Herbivory, current velocity and algal regrowth: how does periphyton grow when the grazers have gone? Freshwat Biol 51:2114–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wellnitz T, Rader RB (2003) Mechanisms influencing community composition and succession in mountain stream periphyton: Interactions between scouring history, grazing, and irradiance. J N Am Benthol Soc 22:528–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wellnitz TA, Ward JV (1998) Does light intensity modify the effect mayfly grazers have on periphyton? Freshwat Biol 39:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wellnitz TA, Poff NL, Cosyleon G, Steury B (2001) Current velocity and spatial scale as determinants of the distribution and abundance of two rheophilic herbivorous insects. Landscape Ecol 16:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson WG, Osenberg CW, Schmitt RJ, Nisbet RM (1999) Complementary foraging behaviors allow coexistence of two consumers. Ecology 80:2358–2372CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentUniversity of Wisconsin–Eau ClaireEau ClaireUSA
  2. 2.Biology DepartmentColorado State UniversityFt. CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations